An umbrella review of the benefits and risks associated with youths’ interactions with electronic screens

Taren Sanders (), Michael Noetel, Philip Parker, Borja Pozo Cruz, Stuart Biddle, Rimante Ronto, Ryan Hulteen, Rhiannon Parker, George Thomas, Katrien Cocker, Jo Salmon, Kylie Hesketh, Nicole Weeks, Hugh Arnott, Emma Devine, Roberta Vasconcellos, Rebecca Pagano, Jamie Sherson, James Conigrave and Chris Lonsdale
Additional contact information
Taren Sanders: Australian Catholic University
Michael Noetel: University of Queensland
Philip Parker: Australian Catholic University
Borja Pozo Cruz: University of Southern Denmark
Stuart Biddle: University of Southern Queensland
Rimante Ronto: Macquarie University
Ryan Hulteen: Louisiana State University
Rhiannon Parker: University of New South Wales
George Thomas: The University of Queensland
Katrien Cocker: Ghent University
Jo Salmon: Deakin University
Kylie Hesketh: Deakin University
Nicole Weeks: Australian Catholic University
Hugh Arnott: Australian Catholic University
Emma Devine: University of Sydney
Roberta Vasconcellos: Australian Catholic University
Rebecca Pagano: Australian Catholic University
Jamie Sherson: Australian Catholic University
James Conigrave: Australian Catholic University
Chris Lonsdale: Australian Catholic University

Nature Human Behaviour, 2024, vol. 8, issue 1, 82-99

Abstract: Abstract The influence of electronic screens on the health of children and adolescents and their education is not well understood. In this prospectively registered umbrella review (PROSPERO identifier CRD42017076051 ), we harmonized effects from 102 meta-analyses (2,451 primary studies; 1,937,501 participants) of screen time and outcomes. In total, 43 effects from 32 meta-analyses met our criteria for statistical certainty. Meta-analyses of associations between screen use and outcomes showed small-to-moderate effects (range: r = –0.14 to 0.33). In education, results were mixed; for example, screen use was negatively associated with literacy (r = –0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.20 to –0.09, P ≤ 0.001, k = 38, N = 18,318), but this effect was positive when parents watched with their children (r = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.28, P = 0.028, k = 12, N = 6,083). In health, we found evidence for several small negative associations; for example, social media was associated with depression (r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.19, P ≤ 0.001, k = 12, N = 93,740). Limitations of our review include the limited number of studies for each outcome, medium-to-high risk of bias in 95 out of 102 included meta-analyses and high heterogeneity (17 out of 22 in education and 20 out of 21 in health with I2 > 50%). We recommend that caregivers and policymakers carefully weigh the evidence for potential harms and benefits of specific types of screen use.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01712-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41562-023-01712-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/nathumbehav/

DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01712-8

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Human Behaviour is currently edited by Stavroula Kousta

More articles in Nature Human Behaviour from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().